I Think We Should Be Able To Offer Our Services To Those Who Needs It
i fpeople post up they need help from lenders, investors or looking to find lender or properties
i think we should be allowed to post on that forum, WE CAN HELP . This is wht we can do for you.
everytime i get my posting bumped off because i am trying to help someone or give them contact info. i guess we are paying our money for what reason? to discuss our problems without receiving help or that the people who owns this site are the only one who can control what we pay for....
What do you guys think?
I think you can also list your sevices if you click on lenders at the top of the page. Also you should post some more in response to creative financing (since you are a mortgage broker) maybe the moderators will be more forgiving + it might build your credibility with the hundreds of investors that view this site because this site is a great outlet-just my 2 cents
Sd,
As a previous post noted, you can offer your lending services in the Lenders section.
However, if this site were to allow solicitation and advertising of everyone's business in the FORUMS then there would be more problems than answers.
How would you feel about this site if you got ripped off because we allowed every "expert" to solicit their business without checking them out.
It's one thing to act upon bad advice that is free, its another when you are paying for such. The forums are an avenue in which one can post a question or solution in which others can agree, disagree or expand on such information.
If you want to "help" then I suggest you look at giving advice (without offering your business services) and write articles about your field of expertise. Of course you can also write a book or come up with a program and sell it here too........but there has to be some limitations and divisions as well at to what TCI allows.
I as well as others give free advice all the time here on this site, as well as writing various articles.
The other thing to take into consideration that the forums, for the most part, are to give and get information. We delete or lock post when the "forum rules" are being violated, erroneous information is being passed or we feel a scam is going on.
Do we catch every violation, No, ............all the moderators are strictly volunteers and offer help as their time dictates.
Again, if you or anyone else wants to truly help then post your information and advice for all to read.
NC_Yank
You need to stop and listen to yourself. Have we proven that Iraq or Saddam was a part of 9/11?
What is the real reason why we went to war? Not 9/11 or we would be lookin for Bin. not Sad. and we would have found weapons of M D wouldn't we, our president would not have lied to us could he being such a man of integity and resolve?
NYRE,
If he lied, then he knew then what we know now. He had the same intelligence that everyone else had. It was bad Intelligence. Not Lies. We are continuing to look For BinLaden. He might just be buried under some rubble in a cave somewhere though. I mean, No one has heard from him in a while have they?
So you are telling me that Bush has changed his intelligence. Isn't the same people in charge? No one has heard of Bin in a while are we really looking for him how could you say that? where are your facts
NYRE,
Obviously, you did not read my post very carefully, or you would have noticed that I based my arguments on Saddam Hussein not being tied to 911. This war is bigger than 911--it is about terror in general. Whether or not Saddam was tied to 911 is, at this point, moot. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist who had the knowledge and will to do us evil, and if given enough time, was very likely to equip terrorists with knowledge, resources, or WMD's, or perhaps attack us in someway himself. Preemption is always better than vengeance. Had we given Hussein more time, and he had done this, everyone would blame Bush for not having gone to war. Again, please let me emphasize: This is a war on terror in general--not just a war on the 911 terrorists. In order to increase our safety, terrorism must be addressed everywhere it exists, and we would make a huge mistake if we focused all of our energies in one place and ignored all the other terrorists in the world. That would be a catastrophic mistake.
As far as Bin Ladin is concerned, a report just came out from a member of from the Pentagon that the US has pinpointed Bin Laden's whereabouts in the mountains of Pakistan, but that due to the instability of Musharaff's government, it would be very difficult to go in after him, because it would start a civil war in that country. Here is the URL to that story (I don't know if I'm allowed to give URL's or not--moderators please forgive me if I'm not):
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/23/113806.shtml. We will get him--we just have to go about it in the right way. And for what it is worth, we have caught the majority of the leaders of Al Qaeda, which is a huge accomplishment. And we did depose the government (the Taliban) that aided and embedded them.
For these reasons, I find it totally unfair to say that we have neglected the search for Bin Laden in exchange for going after Saddam Hussein. This is not an either/or situation--it's both/and. In other words, we don't have to choose between fighting off one group of terrorists or another. We can, and must, fight terrorism wherever it exists, before it is too late. This is about more than avenging 911--it is about preventing another one--perhaps an even worse one.
NYRE, I agree. Kerry will get my first time vote also. I think Kerry is going to do real well on Nov. 2.
Suntzu18
I'm actually getting tired of the line that 'everyone supported Bush in invading Iraq".
You guys whine and say it's unAmerican to not support the president's decisions. That Kerrys a 'flip-flopper' because he changed his mind about the war.
What ever happened to the "Buck Stops Here?" What happened to presidents that took responsibility? People went off HIS info. We used HIS administrations information. He was the man in CHARGE.
Bush said that there were wmds in Iraq AND they knew where they were. In response to his PROMISE that they were there, everyone rallied around him. Surely he couldn't just be doing the old Bush family war on Iraq again.
Turns out there weren't any wmd's. People immediately changed their minds. The new data conflicted with the old data that was originally used to make decisions. That's logical.
Did Bush know there weren't any? Probably. But let's say he didn't. Did he have the decency to admit he screwed up? Did he take the responsiblity as the commader and chief that made the orders?
Now you might say that admitting he was wrong would be showing weakness to the 'enemy'. That's b.s.
It would show he wasn't stupid and illogical. Meantime, did you catch the report today on how many of the Iraq civilians have been slaughtered since the mistake? I'm talking about civilians. You know, like me and you.
Ok, you say your r.e. investors? How about this...
Your partner brings you in on a deal and says you'll each make 100k. He shows you the info and swears he checked out all the angles. Your a little worried because you really don't think it's a good neighborhood to invest in. It's never paid off in that area before.
Wait a minute. Your partner says he knows a buyer that will repurchase your flip the day after you buy it and pay 200k more than your cost. You look at the comps he provides, but tell him you'll need a little time to check things out yourself. He says it's now or never. There is no time. Someone else will grab it. You finally take his word for it and put up the cash.
Sure enough, there is no second buyer. Your partner says that he must have been lied to. There WAS a buyer he swears, but he can't locate him. He says it's not his fault. Also he says you'll need to put up some more money and rehab the place and everything will be alright.
It's already way over priced for the neighborhood as it is. Putting in more money now would be stupid. He now calls you a flip-flopper. You backed him before, but now you changed your mind.
You must be 'anti-investor'. It's a deal your stuck with and there is no exit strategy.
To make matters worse, he wants you to invest with him again. He says you must stand firm. He also tells you the partnership will last another 4 years.
"I also agree that people shouldn't be able to get prescription drugs from Canada until we know for sure that it is safe. I want people, especially seniors to be able to afford their medication, but I also want them to actually get what they are paying for. I hope it can work out for us to be able to get drugs from Canada. "
Candace,
You make some interesting points. I would question the part that I referenced. It would appear, that Canada's flu vaccine was good enough to import, but other drugs are not. An interesting double standard.
I would disagree that the economy is getting better being that unemployment numbers just came out again, and they increased - again. I am not saying that the President is to be blaimed for the economy, just that the economy isn't doing that well.
You did make some interesting points. It is unfortunate that he still does not understand the ramifications that stem cell research would give to a lot of different people.
It is what it is, and after the election and the lawsuits, we will see who the courts decide on who the President will be for the next four years.
new creation glad to meet you. religion and politics are two subjects that stirs up alot of emotion. those two issues alone has caused more wars than any other issues www.combined.i discuss these issues on the basis of a realist not a democrat or republican.as a realist i see no use for all the different religions in the world. there is one god not a baptist god catholic god etc..... as for the election i will vote for the best man.both bush and kerry have minuses and pluses it boils down to who is going to make america better. americans are not safer today because of the defeat of iraq we are in more danger. americans have to be careful to visit other countries today because of the hate other countries have for us.bush knows who is the number one terrorist in the world bin laden. why attack iraq who has no ties to binladen? bush masterfully raised the emotions of america when we were at are lowest point after 911and we wanted revenge on somebody so sadam was a easy www.target.the baptist preacher use the same tactic in church hollering and screaming therefore raising the emotions of his members to where they will give him all their money and come back next sunday for their emotional fix again. bush is working on the emotions of america and we are losing sight of the real issues that face america today.jobs,education,our basicfreedoms. the patriot act is a dangerous bill it can let the goverment call martial law if it wants to.also it has put many arab americans in jail unjustly.kerry critics talk about how he badmouthed his fellow soldiers in nam how about how americans denounced the vets when they came back home?being a realist bush has made america a bully and probably the most despised country in the world.
Candace...very well said...I am an immigrant who went through the proper channels 43 years ago (i was 19 at the time). I am very much an Adam Smith free enterprise advocator & i believe when the founding fathers formed our democratic republic they were intent on invoking the principles in his book "the wealth of nations"...the marketplace left unfettered is an unbelievable force & can generate a monster economy that lifts all boats...however, we have the socialist faction that think they can do it better...this struggle has been going on between the two for 500 yrs...its nothing new... here in the U.S.A. its the same struggle with the same 2 philosophies played out with 2 political parties...on one hand we have Rebublicans wanting to limit gov't & keep as much money in the hands of the people as possible (ala Adam Smith) and the Democrats (socialist factor) wanting to invoke their own programs & philosophies by confiscation of currency (i.r.s. & taxes of every kind etc.) to achieve their own ends (this includes make work in any manner for their supporters...or targeted tax cuts guess for who...that's right, their supporters...you see there is only about 46% of the people vote & when we have an election like 1990 where Larry King got Perot to run...the Democrats fooled the people again...yes Bill won with 43% of 46% of the vote...that equals19.78% of the total vote that decided how 80.22% of the people were to be governed...I came here from Canada as a Liberal (that's the Democrat party in Canada)...I became a Kennedy Democrat ...when Ronald Reagan became our governor in Calif. I was a little older & intriqued by him & his grasp of "Supply Side Theory"...he was a supply sider just like Kennedy...He was a democrat that left the party because ,as he said , they moved so far left that they left the country. I felt the same way...so i became a Republican & have never regretted it. George Bush is truly a good man but the hate spewwing from the other side in conjunction with the compliant socialist media is more than anyone should bear...i don't know how he does it...I look up north to the country of my birth & i'm saddened by the state of affairs there...socialism has slowed & limited their rate of growth in their economy & we are on the same road if the Democratic Party gets control. They are masters at propaganda...and so were the Liberals in Canada, so good, their people still don't realize they were duped or just don't care anymore. I see that happening here and just pray that the American people will see it before it's too late...Economics may seem boring or dry but it is not...it's exciting & informative & will open everyone's eyes to "the possibilities" that this great country can be great again under the proper leadership of true supply siders where everyone benefits not just a few "supporters"...google Adam Smith & take a journey...you too will understand & feel the great expectations for this land of ours and for the great men that signed the constitution...gbt...USA....CWal
newcreation i enjoy a constructive debate yes there are other terrorist around the world who can cause havoc. but binladen have caused and is still causing havoc and has the means to continue.sadams wmd was there ever a definition of what these weapons were? and if they were not nuclear bombs how could he attack the united states. his army is third world equivalent meaning that if we compared it to football teams it would be a junior high team to our pro team. if sadam had wmd being the madman bush made him out to be he would have used them?it do not add up. also the congress was on the hot seat again all of america wanted revenge do you think they would risk their political seat by going against the president at that time"i think not.binladen and family not to mention saudi arabia where the pilots were from owe bush a big favor i wonder how they are going to repay him in cash or oil?thanks for your time.
cwal,
Great post! I agree with everything you said.
The Clinton years were prosperous because of the lasting effects of Reaganomics.
And you're absolutely right about the Democratic party moving towards socialism. John Kerry's healthcare plan, for instance, is a socialist plan.
Socialism has been tried in a number of countries around the world, and it has failed every time. People living under socialist governments most often find themselves very poor, with nothing they can call their own. Socialist philosophy has been allowed to seep in because there has been a gradual shift towards it. People accept one point of view, then another is introduced until they accept that one.
Government in this country is supposed to be by the people. Socialism reverses this. Socialism dehumanizes people and assumes they need the government to do their thinking for them. Of course, we need some controls in order to maintain order, but excessive taxes and social programs impose too much control over the individual.
Thank you again for your very intelligent post.
Candace
shadow4,
Good points, but as I'm sure you already knew, I have rebuttals!
We know that Saddam Hussein had mustard gas at one time because he used it to gas his own people. Beyond that, I do not know what the intelligence said (see, I'm not even afraid to admit when I don't know something!).
I don't think anyone ever thought he had nuclear weapons, or that he would use his own army to deliver any kind of weapons. The concern was that he could collaborate with terrorists, who do have the means to bring weapons here, and supply them with whatever weapons or knowledge they needed to produce their own. This may not have happened as of yet, but given time, it was a strong possibility.
I agree that Bin Laden could still raise havoc as long as he is free, but we have not abandoned our search for him, and according to a Newsmax report (I posted a link to it in an earlier post on this thread), Bin Laden has been pinpointed. And the fact that he is still on the loose and could cause havoc does not justify neglecting to fight terrorism in other places where it exists.
Cordially,
Candace
Candace...i'm pleasantly surprised at your grasp of issues in many different areas. Its truly refreshing to meet a someone that is open minded enough to examine all sides & draw intelligent conclusions...very rare in this country... Maybe there is hope after all...CWal
cwal,
Thank you for the compliment. Let me encourage you further by saying that there really are a lot of Americans who have a firm grasp of the issues. Fortunately, there is news available on the internet, through sites such as Newsmax and World Net Daily, where there is not a liberal bias, and the truth is presented. There are also excellent commentators, such as Chuck Colson, who work hard to inform the public of the issues. At the same time, many books are being written by informed conservatives such as Ann Coulter, and these books have been on the New York Times Bestseller's list every time they have come out.
So the American public is looking for the truth, and thanks to the brave people who are willing to wage their own war against the socialist propaganda, one day the truth is going to win out.
Candace
i don't agree with everything gw has done but i believe he is the best choice to keep our economy freeand to keep us safe. i voted for bush........km
******************
aquazomb,
I believe that the original poster of this thread asked for intelligent, thoughtful responses, not some rude, thoughtless, foul-mouthed bashing reply.
Stick with supported facts, intelligent opinions, and watch your language.
*********************************
Roger Johnson
TCI Moderator[ Edited by rajwarrior on Date 10/29/2004 ]
You bush voters are completely misinformed. Did any of you read either Woodwards’s Clarkes’ or Paul O’Neill’s books? This administration had it in there heads to invade Iraq as soon as they took office. They used 9-11 as a pretext. What does it take for you all to understand that? 1000+ American men and women are now dead, and thousands more maimed for life due to what Pat Buchannan (a staunch conservative, mind you) has said is the biggest strategic blunder in the history of this country.
And the comments about how the prosperity under Clinton were due to Reaganomics? Are you kidding me? Clinton cleaned up the Republicans’ messes, and left office with a 500 billion surplus, which Bush squandered on a tax cut, 80% of which is targeted for the top 1% of taxpayers, during a time of war. If this isn’t irresponsible, I don’t know what is.
We didn’t have to invade Iraq. We had flyover rights over 80% of the Country. UN Weapons inspectors were back in the country, and would have determined what we know now to be true; that Hussein did not have WMD.
We have now inflamed a religion of 1 billion Muslims for generations to come. And you all think we’re safer now than before?
Thank you for your well-thought out response.
I find it interesting that you mentioned Pat Buchanan. While he doesn't specifically agree with the war in Iraq, he does not believe Bush misled us. He blames bad intelligence. Furthermore, he has given George Bush his ringing endorsement for reelection, saying Bush is much better on judges, taxes, values, and sovereignty. He also has confidence that Bush will do the right things in Iraq.
As for the economy, if you look carefully at the Clinton years, Bill Clinton simply left the economy alone. He inherited a prosperous economy and rode with it. Throughout his last year in office, economists began predicting a "market correction," and indeed, six months before Clinton left office, the economy began to slide. Again, Clinton did nothing.
With the tax cut, I can see that you have bought into the whole democrat propaganda machine. The Bush tax cut did not only benefit the rich. Bush's tax cut benefited everybody. Many lower income people now have no tax liability, and many middle income people, myself included, have benefited tremendously from the Bush tax cuts. The biggest problem with this issue is that people don't take the time to think it through logically. The top 1% of our country pay well over 50% of the tax burden. They pay dollar amounts in taxes that exceed the annual income of many middle-income earners. It makes sense, then, that the dollar amounts of their tax cuts, would be higher. Still the middle-class benefited more. Let me use an example to illustrate what I am trying to say here. Let's say a multi-millionaire had a tax liability of $500,000 per year, but that with the Bush tax cut, saw that reduced down to $350,000. That's a $150,000 decrease--wow, what a benefit. Let's say a middle-class person earning $50,000 per year with two kids had an annual tax burden of $1000, but through the earned income credit and the child tax credit, ends up owing nothing and getting back $200. Under the Bush tax cuts, this person could very well receive more like $2000. Now which person do you think felt the most benefit? Hopefully, the obvious answer is the second one. For a multi-millionaire, an extra $150,000 per year isn't going to make much difference in this person's lifestyle or ability to pay bills, make purchases, etc. Yet the middle-class person may be able to really use this extra money to pay off debts, make a major purchase such as a downpayment on a car, or use the money for an investment. Taxes were too high for everyone when Bush took office. The fair thing, and the most economically smart thing to do, was to give everyone tax relief. People tend to be awfully harsh about the rich. Many of these people have worked hard to become rich, and they deserve to keep their money, too.
Tax cuts do stimulate the economy. They encourage small businesses to operate and make it easier for them to hire or try new ventures because they have more money to work with. This creates jobs. It is a slow process, but if you look carefully at history the long-term results will bear this out.
And democrats are known as big spenders. They just want to raise taxes so they can spend your money. John Kerry claims he can balance the budget and pay down our debt, but he will never do this only by raising taxes if he institutes some of his expensive, socialist programs such as his healthcare plan.
Now for Iraq. Saddam Hussein was not cooperating. He wouldn't let the inspectors in, and when he did, he would restrict areas where they had access. The President received intelligence from all over the world that Iraq had these weapons. If he had not pursued this, and Iraq had equipped terrorists to attack us, President Bush would have gotten the blame for that too. Preemption is always better than vengeance.
We have not stirred the entire Arab world against us by going into Iraq--they hated us long before that. And yes, the world is safer with Saddam Hussein gone because there is now one less terrorist leader in the world that other terrorists could go to for information about biological weapons.
Candace
Responses in-line...
Quote:On 2004-10-29 15:29, aquazomb wrote:
You bush voters are completely misinformed. Did any of you read either Woodwards’s Clarkes’ or Paul O’Neill’s books? This administration had it in there heads to invade Iraq as soon as they took office.
This is pure conspiracy theory fantacy. If we had wanted Iraq, we couldn't taken it while Bush senior was in there.
Quote: They used 9-11 as a pretext. What does it take for you all to understand that? 1000+ American men and women are now dead, and thousands more maimed for life due to what Pat Buchannan (a staunch conservative, mind you) has said is the biggest strategic blunder in the history of this country.
George Bush believes in a peoples right to be free and live in a democracy. The Iraqies voted in free elections this year.
Quote:And the comments about how the prosperity under Clinton were due to Reaganomics? Are you kidding me? Clinton cleaned up the Republicans’ messes, and left office with a 500 billion surplus
Yes the economy of 2000 is what we have Clinton to thank for. Tech jobs anyone?
Quote:which Bush squandered on a tax cut, 80% of which is targeted for the top 1% of taxpayers, during a time of war. If this isn’t irresponsible, I don’t know what is.
Wow, I didn't expect the standard liberal class warfare jargon on an investor website. Guess what, wealthy people pay more taxes, so a tax cuts give them more of their money back. You make it sound like it's the governments right to take our money. Those damned rich people, they should pay much more than their fair share, they're rich after all.
Quote:
We didn’t have to invade Iraq. We had flyover rights over 80% of the Country. UN Weapons inspectors were back in the country, and would have determined what we know now to be true; that Hussein did not have WMD.
Wrong again. Recent reports support the belief that weapons existed and were moved to Siria and Iran which Bush has been saying all along.
Quote:We have now inflamed a religion of 1 billion Muslims for generations to come. And you all think we’re safer now than before?
Now inflamed? You act like they liked us at one point. We've always been their "Great Satan" before Iraq and now. The fact remains that we have killed and detained most of the Al-queda elite. The organization is a shell of it's former self and two of the terrorist breeding grounds are now democracies.
[addsig]
"Regal,
I found your response to be quite emotional and not based on fact. Obviously, you feel very passionate about your stance, and I respect that. All I would say in rebuttal is that the intelligence Bush received about Iraq did not come just from his administration. It came from other countries, such as Russia and Israel (who aren't even friends with each other). I never said everyone agreed with Bush on going to war against Iraq--I only said that everyone believed there were weapons of mass destruction, and many still believe there were, but that they were moved to Syria or perhaps Iran before the arrival of our troops. Even the UN thought he had them. There was no disagreement on whether or not he had them. The disagreement was on whether or not to go to war. "
Actually, the war was planned all along. Way before 911.
When the adminstration put the Bin Laden family on a jet home on 9-14, that should have been a tip off. They are still searching our grandma's at the terminals however, lol.
"All I would say in rebuttal is that the intelligence Bush received about Iraq did not come just from his administration. "
It went through his adminisration and they blessed it. He the decision maker .It really doesn't matter, we were going to go there hell or high water.
Does it bother anyone how incompetant the military is under his leadership? The response to 911 was was pathetic. I'm speaking from the 911 report results, not my opinion. You don't even want to know my opinion on 911.
I think it was Harry Truman who had the sign on his desk that read "The Buck Stops Here." Boy how things have changed in the role of our county's leader. NOTHING is the Chief's fault anymore. Not the economy, the deaths, the lies, the schools, healthcare, social security. Nothing is the top decision maker's fault. You want 4 more years of complete unaccountability?
Ok, you cna go back to agreeing with each other.
you all are completely evading my critiques. I didn't say that the rich, or anyone else, was not entitled to a tax cut. It is our money. But you mean to tell me you believe a tax cut during war time, which has created a massive deficit that my and your children will be paying for, is fiscally prudent? Aren't Republicans supposed to be the party of fiscal restraint?
And just how exactly, are the writings of three independent authors, two of which served in the administration at the time, a "conspiracy theory?"
you all don't get it.
and you obviously did not read Buchannan's book, because he does NOT blame bad intelligence, he blames the neoconservative wing of the adminstration which has Israel as one of it's primary concerns, NOT our country.
Quote:
On 2004-10-29 16:31, regal wrote:
"Regal,
Does it bother anyone how incompetant the military is under his leadership? The response to 911 was was pathetic. I'm speaking from the 911 report results, not my opinion....
How are these related exactly?
Quote:I think it was Harry Truman who had the sign on his desk that read "The Buck Stops Here." Boy how things have changed in the role of our county's leader. NOTHING is the Chief's fault anymore. Not the economy (market corrects out of Bush's control), the deaths (terrorist out of Bush's control), the lies (Flawed intelligence in Bush's control), the schools (absentee parents out of Bush's control), healthcare (best in the world is there a problem?), social security (dumb idea created LONG before Bush). Nothing is the top decision maker's fault (especially things that have nothing to do with them). You want 4 more years of complete unaccountability?
Of the things you mentioned, I guess I fault Bush for trusting a CIA director from the Clinton years. But that was resolved as he was quietly retired. Stop pretending like Bush is going to be intimately involved in everything and is responsible for anything that goes wrong in the whole USA. There are thousands of people who have a hand in these issues. There are thousands of people in positions of responsibility over these issues.
Leaders are not people who handle the details. They provide vision. Bush invisioned a free Afganistan and Iraq and that's what we got (good and the bad). Kerry recently declared that had he been president, Saddam might have been removed. Poll driven leadership scares me.
[addsig]
Quote:
On 2004-10-29 16:32, aquazomb wrote:
you all are completely evading my critiques. I didn't say that the rich, or anyone else, was not entitled to a tax cut. It is our money. But you mean to tell me you believe a tax cut during war time, which has created a massive deficit that my and your children will be paying for, is fiscally prudent? Aren't Republicans supposed to be the party of fiscal restraint?
Now you're backpeddling. If it wasn't about the rich, why did you bring of the "top 1%". Now who's evading.
Quote:And just how exactly, are the writings of three independent authors, two of which served in the administration at the time, a "conspiracy theory?"
Let me quote O'Niell www.CNN.com for youQuote:
"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.
"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."
But Tuesday O'Neill said, "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances."
So O'Niell COMPLETELY debunks your conspiracy theory that you base on HIS book.
[addsig]
Savvy Youngster,
It looks like we agree on quite a bit. Thanks for your excellent rebuttals. You are obviously very well-informed on the issues, even more so than myself. I'm learning from your posts!
Aquazomb,
Okay, you got me. I have not read the book. I based my information from an interview, and I went back and checked it, and you were right. Buchanan does blame Bush's Iraq decision on the "neoconservative branch" of the administration. My point, though is still the same, and that is that Bush did not deliberately mislead us, and he still believes he did the right thing. I don't agree with all of Buchanan's ideas, including his view of the war. I just find it interesting that you brought him up even though you know he support President Bush despite his own opposition to the war.
As for taxes, I think it is important to work to stimulate the economy during tax time because war makes the economy fragile due to the expenses. Tax cuts are not causing the deficits, and in the end, tax cuts can create jobs by encouraging small businesses to grown and increasing people's ability to invest, which will result in more people paying taxes, and thus more revenue being received by the government. So yes, I think that a tax cut during a time of war can be justified. What is causing the deficits is the fact that on September 11, 2001, terrrorists flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon, and tried unsuccessfully to fly another plane into another building. In short, we were attacked, and we have had to respond accordingly. This is expensive. The problem does not lie with Bush--he wants to help our country be safe; the problem is the terrorists, and we are going after them.
If you think a tax cut is so bad, do you think it is appropriate to spend billions of taxpayers dollars to institute a federal healthcare plan during a time of war?
again, a tax cut isn't bad. I loved my tax cut.
A tax cut during the middle of a war, where the money from the 500 billion surplus left from the Clinton administration could have been better served on:
1. better securing our ports
2. screening more than the 5 percent of baggage carried onto american airliners
3. beefed up enforcement of our borders
etc. etc. etc.
tax cuts are nice.
NOT DURING WARTIME
Yale University newspaper editorial endorses Kerry for President:
"Much has been made of the fact that whoever wins next Tuesday, a Yalie will occupy the Oval Office. Yet we see stark differences in how Bush and Kerry live up to the ideals of their alma mater. ...
"Yale prides itself on rewarding intellectual curiosity and fostering open debate. And though the White House is not a seminar room, we value a president's willingness to think critically about his beliefs and subject his proposals to scrutiny," the newspaper wrote.
"In Bush, we see a president who has been constrained by stubbornly refusing to admit his mistakes or entertain alternative ideas. But in these uncertain times, we need a president with the ability to be both strong and open-minded — a president like John Kerry," it wrote.
"Does it bother anyone how incompetant the military is under his leadership? The response to 911 was was pathetic. I'm speaking from the 911 report results, not my opinion. You don't even want to know my opinion on 911"
response:
"I find that kind of a harsh thing to say. I am proud of our military. I think they are doing a great job, and the military overwhelmingly supports Bush. And most Americans disagree that George Bush was pathetic in his handling of 911. "
I love our militery men. They are the citizens, like you and I. They follow commands.
I think it's time to read the report. Even AFTER censoring page after page, it still was embarrasing.
No aircraft was intercepted. A commercial plane was followed on radar heading to the pentagon with NO air strike response (a whole different story in itself).
Airforce one traveled aimlessly waiting for some kind of escort that showed up a half hour to an hour late.
Bush sat in a classroom for over 7 minutes without moving after being told our country was under attack. You can blow that off any way you wish, but if someone came in and said my child was being attacked, you couldn't hold me in my seat.
Read the report and investigate the timeline of 911. It's apalling.
THAT'S what I mean about our defense system under our current administration. He talks tough, but when it came down to it, he froze. That's very important to me. Actions don't lie.
"George Bush believes in a peoples right to be free and live in a democracy. The Iraqies voted in free elections this year."
They did? That's news to me--
the elections have NOT taken place, and probably won't in any way that will placate the world that they were fair. Whole sections of the country are not even under US control, and you expect elections to take place?
You want a prediction on Iraq if Bush is elected?
We are going to high-tail it out of there so quick it will make your head spin. We will purport to have held fair elections, when anything but will take place; we will hand over government control to a regime that is not prepared to defend themselves, and we will wash our hands of this mess.
thousands of dead, wounded, maimed etc. for what?
Iraq will be a haven for terrorists, Iran will cause nothing but continued trouble for the new government on it's border; the country will in all likelihood splinter into either a theocracy or a civil war.
We have no international backing for going after Iran or N. Korea, and the country will NOT follow Bush into any preemptive activities, because he RUSHED TO WAR
end of story
Even a CIA assessment spells out most of what is above.
THERE WILL NOT BE ELECTIONS THERE. GET A CLUE
aquazomb,
I disagree. There will be an election in Iraq.
Both sides are actually eager for it to happen. The U.S. is eager, because then we can get the heck out of there.
Iraq is eager so we can get the heck out of there.
The elections are now merely an event that needs to happen so it all stops.
If we can hold it all together long enough for an election, noone cares about the fall-out, because we 'liberated' Iraq and gave them an election.
Regal,
It appears we do agree on at least one thing!
But I have to disagree that we will leave as soon as the elections happened. Perhaps Kerry would want to do that.
Bush would keep our troops there until the government is stabilized and firmly in control.
Regards,
Candace
"If you have a problem with Bush's leadership during the immediate aftermath of 911, you are in the minority.
That's the second time you've mentioned that I'm in a minority in the way I feel. That carries no weight with me. Bush won a minority of the votes in 2000 and he was made president.
All of America, including both parties of Congress, have praised President Bush's leadership during that time, repeatedly"
Big overstatement. All of America?
"Bush is not all talk. He has way more backbone than Kerry, "
If we're talking backbone, let's look at their service records in the military.
"and he has always followed through with what he has said he would do to fight terrorists"
There we go again. Everything? Did he get those wmd's? Did he get Bin Laden? See, blanket statements are rarely appropriate. Those were his 2 biggest promises.
The bottom line for me is this... The numbers came out yesterday that we have killed over 100,000 people in Iraq since we went over 17 months ago.
I realize a vast majority of lives were civilians, like me and you.
I believe God didn't just give us a free ticket to kill other people. We act like their lives aren't as important as ours.
I am voting for Kerry because I feel there will be less lives lost under his command. That's it.
"That's the second time you've mentioned that I'm in a minority in the way I feel. That carries no weight with me. Bush won a minority of the votes in 2000 and he was made president."
There is strong evidence to indicate that is only true because of a)the media calling Florida prematurely, and b)democratic vote fraud. Several studies were done after the election, and the vast majority of all vote fraud was committed by democrats.
"Big overstatement. All of America?"
Surely mature people know what I mean. I'm not going to get into a semantical argument about words. Okay --the vast majority of America, including the liberal press, democrats, and republicans alike praised Bush's leadership during that time.
"Bush is not all talk. He has way more backbone than Kerry, "
"If we're talking backbone, let's look at their service records in the military. "
Perhaps you need to take a closer look at Kerry's military record. Maybe watch "Stolen honor." Kerry sure is afraid of that one.
Also, those military records are from when both candidates were very young men. I am more concerned about the backbone they have now. Kerry changes his views all the time according to what he thinks is going to get him more votes. I don't even think he knows what he really thinks. Bush is not afraid to do the unpopular thing if he thinks that is what is best for the country.
""and he has always followed through with what he has said he would do to fight terrorists"
There we go again. Everything? Did he get those wmd's? Did he get Bin Laden? See, blanket statements are rarely appropriate. Those were his 2 biggest promises."
My answer to those questions would be: Not yet, not yet. But George Bush will not stop until he has.
"The bottom line for me is this... The numbers came out yesterday that we have killed over 100,000 people in Iraq since we went over 17 months ago.
I realize a vast majority of lives were civilians, like me and you."
Really? and just where did those numbers come from?
"I believe God didn't just give us a free ticket to kill other people. We act like their lives aren't as important as ours."
I agree that God doesn't give us a free ticket to kill other people. But He does allow for war in some instances.
"I am voting for Kerry because I feel there will be less lives lost under his command. That's it."
Really? I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. You see, the terrorists want Kerry to be elected. Have you heard the latest Al Qaeda videos? If Kerry is elected, they will be able to roam the world freely, come into our country whenever they want, and annihilate us, as well as other innocent people all over the world who don't happen to be muslims. Perhaps fewer people would die due to war since Kerry would prematurely pull us out of Iraq, but far more will die at the hands of terrorism, and John Kerry does not have the resolve to stand up to them. I will be very afraid for this country is John Kerry is elected.
Candace
"Perhaps you need to take a closer look at Kerry's military record. Maybe watch "Stolen honor." Kerry sure is afraid of that one"
Been there, saw that. Have you seen f911?
""and he has always followed through with what he has said he would do to fight terrorists"
Response:
There we go again. Everything? Did he get those wmd's? Did he get Bin Laden? See, blanket statements are rarely appropriate. Those were his 2 biggest promises."
Response:
My answer to those questions would be: Not yet, not yet. But George Bush will not stop until he has.
Then don't make statements like:
"he has always followed through with what he has said he would do "
"The bottom line for me is this... The numbers came out yesterday that we have killed over 100,000 people in Iraq since we went over 17 months ago.
I realize a vast majority of lives were civilians, like me and you."
response:
"Really? and just where did those numbers come from? "
It was thelead a.p. news item yesterday. Lead story on Yahoo and front page of L.A Times this morning. I imagine it was in every paper and news program (except fox).
It's amazing...the monday morning quarterbacks on Bush & Iraq...are all the Neville Chamberlain division of the Democratic party...talk one hell of a fight but when the rubber meets the road they are nowhere to be found. This is the same bunch that repeats 1000 dead on and on ...if you remember correctly, this crowd predicted 50,000 dead if we invaded Iraq...when was the last time they were right. They can't even do a fix on documents with CBS right and the compliant liberal media lets them slide...if you could go back on every one of these detractors you would find that Bush is fair game for everything the only thing driving them is hate and i predict that it doesn't matter who is president the hate was instilled by the Democrat party and propagated by labor unions, NAACP, hollywood etc. I remember in the 50's everyone was up in arms over a frame being inserted in a movie clip in theaters that would say "buy popcorn"...because it was brainwashing people...have you paid attention to TV programming...the blatant liberal slants in story lines in all programs including children's programs...their liberal agenda's have no bounds...this is all part of the FREE advertising the liberal Democrat party gets on a regular basis hence you have mind numb robots spouting the Democrat talking points...I don't think or blame them you see they don't open their eyes or minds enough to really look at things or deseminate fact from fiction...we chided Russia for not having a free press, but we have a free press, just not an honest one...i suppose yuo reap what you sow...CWal
I Believe that the world is a safer place without Saddam. I could care less if there was WMD. If he had a plane and a nuke he would think it was a gift from Jesus and Destroy as many of us as he could. I am voting for Bush ONLY because I know that it can not get any worse that what it already has been. I belive that there is a chance that Kerry could come into office and turn things around. I dont think that this is the right time to take a Chance. I also belive there are two parts in this election. Either I choose kerry and make American a more "respectable" place. Choose Bush knowing that if he heard a whisper of a WMD he would bring the leather strap down hard. I agree with a lot of things Kerry has to say but I also think that there isnt anything original. He is running for president. He HAS to disagree and bash the other president or else he looses.
"This is the same bunch that repeats 1000 dead on and on ...if you remember correctly, this crowd predicted 50,000 dead if we invaded Iraq"
100,000 dead Iraq citizens as of now. Or do you only count Americans?
un-regal like...it was 50,000 of our troops that the left wing Democrats predicted would die...you have a convenient short memory don't you...CWal
"The difference between F-911 and Stolen Honor is that F-911 is all lies, and stolen honor is based on true eyewitness accounts. Anyone who believes anything from F-911 is grossly misinformed. "
Last question, then I'm done. You didn't see 911 it did you? By the way, 911 isn't based on 'eyewitness' accounts. It's true footage taken through the years. It requires no interpretation or memory.
Newcreation -
I'll tell you what, rent the movie and watch it. You don't have to agree with any of it. In fact, you should then research it and find out whats true and whats not.
I will send you a refund of your money
Regal ...how about a little balance...(http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm) ...or are you totally a kool aid drinker...CWal
Regal,
Thanks for the offer, but if I do watch it won't cost me anything. I have ready many analyses of the movie, all of which have said that it is almost entirely fiction. It may use real footage, but it distorts the context.
Candace
Cwal,
Ok, visited the site. Is it out for rent?
"Regal,
Thanks for the offer, but if I do watch it won't cost me anything. I have ready many analyses of the movie, all of which have said that it is almost entirely fiction. It may use real footage, but it distorts the context"
Cool, it wont cost you. Are you going to see it or go by someone else's interpretation? I've read many books on travel, but it really isn't the same as visiting the different places. C'mon, see the movie. Your posts don't agree with mine, but you've been cool about staying on subject, etc. (No kool-aid cracks whatever that means, lol) Just see it. It can't hurt you. I promise.
Be the first one here who didn't judge it with out seeing it. See it and come back and tear it to shreds!
Regal,
I've considered watching it just because of all the hype over it, and just to poke fun. I suppose I would make a better critic if I had actually seen it (Well, Duh!)
regal...did you actually read all 50 pages of "59 deceits of fahrenhype 911" or just click there & back...instead of spouting the Democratic party line why not investigate what they say... there are plenty of sources if you can put your prejudices aside long enough to get all the facts instead of taking snippits and word parsing as gospel truth...My mother (god rest her soul) taught me & my 4 brothers early. I recall saying to her when i was around 10 yrs. old "mom i know it's right, I read it in the newspaper" Her answer was "do you believe everything you read in the newspaper" from that time on i tried to look at both sides and i'm sorry to say but if you do the same you will discover that the Democrats are a party today only because of their lies and people taking as gospel what they say...regards ...CWal
cwal,
To be honest, no, I didnt read all 50 pgs. Is it out on dvd?
New-
I am so impressed! Please do so and then review. I promise to listen to your every word and we can talk about it civally < can't spell.
Well said, bnorton. I can't agree with you more. Unfortunately, many of the political pundits seem to gloss right over the fact that Bin Ladin is threatening us if we re-elect Bush.
Our government's policy has always been that we do not negotiate with terrorists, and for the very reasons that you mentioned: control.
This is an opportunity for the people of America to let the terrorists know that we will not be intimidated, and we cannot be controlled through their intimidation tactics.
Thanks for your post.
Candace
"Even if Bush were not the best choice, we would have to re-elect him just to send that message. "
I'm playing devil's advocate here.
Isn't this letting them dictate our choices?
i don't agree with some things that bush has done. but for destorying terrorism i think he is our best choice. i voted for bush. i feel safer knowing i have his finger on the trigger. i'd rather shoot first and ask questions later. that may sound brutal but we will live longer that way. if the rest of the terrorist countries think that if they blink we will come and shoot their a$$ off so be it. we are at war guys don't forget that. look at the brutality in ww2 and "nam" and any other war. its not a pretty thing. after 9/11 we all wanted "to kill something". bush had the presentance of mind to wait and get the facts. all the facts made not have been correct but he acted on what he thought was correct. hey when he speaks the rest of the world stops and listens. that is what we need. once again the usa has world respect. some say the rest of the world hates us. so what.....they always have and always will. lets act accordingly. don't turn our backs and stand together. .............km
Kenmax,
To tell you the truth, I'm not that concerned with our safety, per se. I of course don't want anything to happen here, but I don't see it as the threat most see it as. I realize I'm pretty much alone in this thinking and I may be wrong. It's just a gut thing.
But if that was my priority in voting on Tuesday, I don't think I would back Bush on that agenda. He was in charge on 911. He had reports, briefings, etc. His staff was in place. He was commander in chief. I like the thought of our military being able to protect us.
Would Kerry have been any better? I guess we'll never know, unless he's elected and we're attacked again.
I do know we were pretty much defenseless on 911 and Bush was in charge. Having him act tough now carries no weight with me.
The old saying that Bush has trouble with is appropriate I believe...
Fool me once - shame on you,
Fool me twice - shame on me.
i don't see the pres., any pres. to be "god like" to me they only human with a job that takes more than one, two, three or the whole country for that matter can't do. for the past 50 yrs. i have seen pres. come and go. to me they are all full of bull doodie. kerry and bush alike. they all make promises that they never keep. talk of a better america and never do anything about it. after elected they all disappear unless they have no choice, and thats what happened to bush, he was caught in the "headlights" sort of speaking. but though it all i still see bush as the only choice maybe not the best choice for america which i have yet to see, but the only choice.......km
Bush had only been in office for eight months when 911 happened. Al Qaeda had planned this for years. Bush inherited a vulnerable America from an ex-President whose biggest concern was hiding the fact that he had been caught having sex with one of his interns. In 1993 the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists. In 1996, TWA Flight 800 was shot down by terrorists (bombshell, I know). Check out this link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41168. Bill Clinton covered it up because it was an election year. I have also read of evidence that the Olympics bombing was a terrorist attack. Thank God we now have a President that is willing to take a stand against terror and confront it wherever it exists. No wonder the terrorists hate Bush!
It takes more than eight months to secure a country that has been so neglected security-wise by a corrupt administration such as Bill Clinton's. Please don't misunderstand me. Nobody is to blame for 911 except the terrorists themselves. But Bill Clinton is the one who failed to keep our country safe, not George Bush. George Bush has made his top priority the security of our nation, despite the persecution and accusations.
The only reason I bring up Bill Clinton is because I see Kerry as the same brand of Democrat as Clinton.
Candace
i voted for bush the first day of early voting. i feel he's our best choice. the demos are leading us to socialism.....km
go bush!..........km
I voted for Bush last term. I didn't vote for Clinton.
I think Kerry is less than an ideal alternative this term.
But I do think that our security as a nation, our economy, our social security, our deficit and our morale as a nation is the worst it's been in my lifetime. Maybe morale was as low in the late 60's and early 70's with Vietnam.
I also think Vietnam should have been more of a lesson than it has been lately.
I have 2 sons that just graduated college and are of draft age. Neither president should be saying that there will be no draft, because they really don't know what it might take to get out of the middle east, let alone what other plans they may have in store for us with other countries.
The young people I've talked to (mainly my sons' friends and a couple of of guys that work with me) seem very disenchanted with our country right now. I mean to the point where I wish I could put them in their places sometimes.
I think they are even further removed from ww2 than I was and they see being patriotic as fighting for what they believe is right, not doing what the governtment tells them to do. And they are right.
One thing that keeps coming up with them is the fact we are always at war with oil-rich nations. They ask why aren't we trying to help out in places like Africa where people are dying at astronomical rates? Why are we killing families that have done no harm? Why can we kill innocents, but noones allowed to kill any of us? How does killing innocents and providing freedom coexist?
These are all reasonable questions that I have no answers for. I'm actually quite embarrased about it.
I've changed parties for the first time in my life. My oldest son says he's going to write in Nader and hope there's are others to get the 5% needed to get a 3rd party on the ballot for the next election. Shoot, I didn't even know about that. I haven't seen it discussed on the networks.
I'm the dumb middle aged white guy that they write about. I'm voting for change this time. That's it. I want a better place than where we have been and I don't buy that being in Iraq will get us there.
I also think the connection with the Bush family and oil and Cheney with Halliburton is just too blaring of a cooincidence. In the business world it's called conflict of interest and politics should be even stricter than that of the free market because the collateral is not money, but rather our kid's lives.
Quote:
On 2004-10-29 19:47, aquazomb wrote:
"George Bush believes in a peoples right to be free and live in a democracy. The Iraqies voted in free elections this year."
They did? That's news to me--
the elections have NOT taken place, and probably won't in any way that will placate the world that they were fair. Whole sections of the country are not even under US control, and you expect elections to take place?
You are absolutely correct, I had confused Iraq and Afganistan. Afgani women voted for the first time this year. Which makes sence since we have been there longer.
Quote:You want a prediction on Iraq if Bush is elected?
We are going to high-tail it out of there so quick it will make your head spin. We will purport to have held fair elections, when anything but will take place; we will hand over government control to a regime that is not prepared to defend themselves, and we will wash our hands of this mess.
thousands of dead, wounded, maimed etc. for what?
This is complete fantasy. Bush has said that he will stay the course and I believe him. Kerry has said that he will increase the number of troops in Iraq. Though he tends to change his mind.
Quote:Iraq will be a haven for terrorists, Iran will cause nothing but continued trouble for the new government on it's border; the country will in all likelihood splinter into either a theocracy or a civil war.
We have no international backing for going after Iran or N. Korea, and the country will NOT follow Bush into any preemptive activities, because he RUSHED TO WAR
These are just wild predictions for an unknown future. You and I both don't know what the future holds
[addsig]
Kenmax,
I appreciate your enthusiasm, as well as your vote for Bush!
Candace
Quote:
On 2004-10-30 20:40, regal wrote:
"Even if Bush were not the best choice, we would have to re-elect him just to send that message. "
I'm playing devil's advocate here.
Isn't this letting them dictate our choices?
I had a feeling you would bring that up, and in a way, you are correct. You could also argue that Bin Laden wants Bush re-elected to facilitate his recruiting. On the other side, you can argue that Bin Laden wants Kerry elected because that will show America is weak, and can be intimidated by terrorism. Either way, Bin Laden stands to gain. You have two kids. When you were raising them, didn't you find that when bad behavior was rewarded it was repeated, and when it was not, it eventually was changed? It is the same thing here. Regardless of Bin Ladin's motives, we cannot reward his behavior by giving into his demands. If we do, we are inviting more terrorism, not only from Bin Laden, but from any other misfit with a cause. We cannot afford to show any signs of weakness.
Here's the text from the latest Bin Laden video. It's pretty interesting reading.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966817.stm
He brings up the patriot act, which I really don't see enough resistance by us as citizens.
Moderators, where are you?
This is a a Residential Real Estate Investing forum or is it?
herbk, WPB FL (right in the middle of it)
herbk,
Please check the forum this thread is posted in: the Random Ramblings forum. We are supposed to talk about anything but real estate in this forum.
Candace
Gee,
He's pro- censorship. Maybe he should join our discussions. lol
I don't like either candidate. But I do know this, over the past 4 years the Bush family has generated 600 milion dollars in oil profits. Much of it due to Bush senior having a business partner in Syria. Historically, Syria is biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. Why not go to war with Syria instead of Iraq? They say that we went after Saddam because he killed 5000 Kurds. Weren't those weapons supplied by the US. Why would we attack Iraq, if its economy and infrastructure had already been shattered by years of economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations? Didn't we support Iraq at one point? http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ (picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Dictator AFTER he killed those Kuwaities. Why didn't we go after him then?)
http://members.cox.net/cowicide/bush/
http://www.topplebush.com/article7_father.shtml
[addsig]
Ah what I have seen in 38 short years on this earth. I will be glad when this election is over so that I can plan my actions over the next 4 years. This is probably the most important election I have seen in my life time. ( when I was in 6th grade in 1976 my class "campaigned" for Carter). What I have observed over the past 4 years is a President that won the electorate... kinda, according to the supreme court but lost the popular vote. He ran as a moderate conservative, but now has moved further right to motivate his base. There have been nasty character ads on both sides and way too much money spent by 527's. As a liberal, I see danger in our current administration. The man is fearless, and consistent. However, he has not listened to his advisors. I do not believe that we should cater to others in our decision making, but by definition preemptive striking goes against our country's beliefs. We are not Big Brother, nor are we the tyrannical dictators that we are today showing the world. We are right this minute flexing our muscles in defiance. Saddam did not attack us. Much as he has throuhout the last 30 years since we put him in power, espoused hatred and brutalized his own people, we never did anything in defense of his people because that has never been our role in the world. Then came a terrible attack on our shores by a group of terrorists called Al Qaida, and Osama bin Ladin, whose family, incidentally, has close business relations with the Bush family, through a company called the Carlisle group, who, today is profitting greatly through it's military buisiness deals. On September 13, 2001 when this coutry was paralyzed with fear, our airlines losing millions of dollars hourly as they were grounded, The remainder of the Bin Ladin family, who were here in the US were safely flown to Saudi Arabia, without so much as being questioned. then, when we had him (Osama) cornered in Torah Borah, we turned over the reins to drug warlords who in the weeks previous, had been working with Bin Ladin. Then the landscape here at home changes. Once against the formation of the 911 commission and the homeland security measures, Mr Bush changes and takes credit for their formation. Next Iraq enters as an imminent threat to the safety of the US. Keep in mind that in 1962 Cuba had missiles pointed at the US and we diplomatically diffused the situation. What was the imminent threat posed by Iraq? WMD? The inspectors, even though they couldn't do their jobs properly, couldn't find the evidence. We talk about casualties. When you go to war there are going to be casualties, it's a given. That's why most leaders have grave difficulty committing live children to war. We have lost 1,000 + live of our own people. We, through the expenditure of billions of dollars have undoubtedly cost the lives of others here at home that that money could have helped. Please believe me when I say I support our troops. I am thankful every day that they are there and have chosen to defend our country with their lives on the line. But for the current administration I pose this question. Are we defending America? What are we doing to prevent terrorism? As a large country with open borders, it is easy to do massive harm either undtected or with small casualties for the terrorist. In my opinion, we are creating a recruitment campaign for young terrorists. Remember, we are chiristian by birth and location. If you were born in China it would be very likely that you are Buddhist, India Hindu, Middle east Islamic. To all the conservatives out there (I say that to the ones who hate all liberals as heathens), do you really believe, as Charisma Magazine says, that GW is the chosen one? That God is on his and thus America's side? I implore you, When Jesus walked this earth, it was the existing clergy that he said was wrong. Jesus preached love and said that God loves all his children, even the unclean, the unsaved, etc.... I won't know this til I'm dead, but I believe, it is my faith that when we get to the hereafter, it ain't gonna be just Pat Robertson and the southern Baptists! I bet there will be Catholics, Jews, Islams, American Indians, and all those others that you on the extreme right have written off to eternal damnation. I know the bible says an eye for an eye, I know it says thou shalt not kill. I also know it says not to be the one to first cast a stone, and that it says turn the other cheek and judge not lest ye be judged. One more thing on the war. I see that Halliburton, who just coincidentally is the company that our VP ran when just before he became VP was awarded a no bid contract while at the same time being investigated for overcharging the government, aka the american taxpayer. As an entrepeneur, I know this country is left to be run by corporate interests, but every so often the masses rise to voice their displeasure at what the corporations are doing to them. Did you know that Cynergy, a large utility based in Cincinnati Ohio was sued by the Clinton administration, settled out of court by agreeing to pay several billion dollars to cut their emissions, but since Bush took over, have not spent a dime, and have not had their feet hel to the flame? Most Americans want nothing more than to be able to make a decent living and take care of their family. Is it easier now, than it was 4 years ago? Unemployment is up, forclosures are up, the average wage paid is down. Will I make it? Yeah, but I am a rare breed. I have seen the signs in my area and have taken steps to protect my future. A lot of Americans now have bad credit due to circumstances beyond their control (the economy for one, limited access to adequate health care for two) I now have the ability to finance their car for them. Hooray for me the capitalist pig. I have a problem with the far right conservatives. They seem to think that they are morally superior than everyone else and are against taxes. I don't like to pay taxes any more than anyone else, but I am more than willing to pay for "liberal" humanistic ideals that every child should have food clothing shelter and healthcare. I believe that we should care for the elderly, I believe we should hold the door for a lady, and that the Highway patrol should help stranded motorists. I don't need a pastor to tell me this. You know, last night I watched part of Kerry's senate hearings when he was 27, and he didn't sound bad at all. As a matter of fact, his testimony helped get our young men home quicker. Do I believe that John Kerry will fulfill every promise he has made during the campaign? No, I would be a fool to think so, welcome to American Politics. I am just honestly scared of where George Bush and company will take us if reelected. My prediction.... a very close race with Kerry winning. Why? Not because that is where my heart is, but because there seems to be a simmering anger in America, and historically, when there is record turnout for an election, which all indicators poit to, it is usuallly bad for the incoumbent. What ever your belief folks, I hope you excercise your right as Americans and cast your vote on Tuesday.
God Bless America and the world,
Shawn Dostie(Ohio)
great post loanwizard i agree with you on the right wing conservitiveswho think every is going to hell except them. i also do not like paying taxes but that is a small issue compared to the unemployment rate and www.economy.the bush supporters are always accusing otherindividuals of getting emoitional when the issues are talked about ,but let you disagree with them and you become www.unamerican.if this is a democracy individuals should be able to speak how they www.feel.everyone one knows the bush and the binladens have common interests in this war with oil and construction being www.thedenominator.the binladen interview could be used as a campaign device for bush,reminding the american people that the terrorrist are afraid of bush if he stays in office.bin laden is on the payroll?
let me say this again...the Democratic Party is BAD for business...my economics teacher used the analogy of the economy being like the legs of a stool...everything has to be balanced. The unfettered (left alone) FREE market system takes care of everything automatically, it does not need help or meddling...the more you mess with it the more you screw it up...that is the major problem with the Democratic party...they can't leave good enough alone. Bill Clinton inherits the strongest longest recovering economy in history and proceeds to dwindle a 4% gnp rate down to a 2% with tax increases and eventually to 0% when Bush came in. Yes, Yes i know... "BUSH INHERITED A 5-6 TRILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS"...Has it ever occured to you all that you can not pull 5-6 trillion out of the hands of the people without putting the country in a recession...Bush did the right thing with the surplus...he put it back into the hands of the people and this spun us out of another Democrat recession(the last one was the Democrat Jimmy Carter recession that another republican, Ronald Reagan spun us out of)...If the Democrats aren't careful the Republicans will stop saving their asses...let's face it , they are socialist do gooders that think they are doing the right thing but are clueless on running an economy except maybe right into the ground...you know, it was proven that the "Mercantile Theory" did not work approx. 300 yrs. ago...this crowd apparently are just ignorant or can't read history...CWal
It's not un-American to disagree with the President.
It is un-American to dis-respect the president.
No matter if you like him, or dis like him, he is still your president.
The president acted upon intelligence not only from our country, but many others.
Our number one ally, Great Britain, also thought that there were weapons.
As far as Saddam, he is the first chess piece in the greater war on terror.
There will be others.
We are at war. Peolpe will die.
When we get finished with Iraq and afghanistan, our war will go somewhere else, and people will die.
Other countries do not hat us because of Iraq, they have always hated us because we are America.
We are what every other country wants to be, but they can't be.
If you are not willing to die for our freedom and our ultimate safety, someone has to.
The time bomb was ticking in Iraq, and if you do not have enough common sense to realize that, you shouldn't be aloud to vote, whether you are voting for President Bush, or Senator Kerry.
You should have to have at least a 15 IQ to vote.
The choice will ultimately come down to who you feel is truly the better man in your heart, and not your head.
Quote:
On 2004-10-31 19:03, MrMirakL wrote:
I don't like either candidate. But I do know this, over the past 4 years the Bush family has generated 600 milion dollars in oil profits. Much of it due to Bush senior having a business partner in Syria. Historically, Syria is biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. Why not go to war with Syria instead of Iraq?
There is no credible news source that is reporting this information. It's absolute left wing conspiracy theory.
Quote:They say that we went after Saddam because he killed 5000 Kurds. Weren't those weapons supplied by the US.
Saddam murdered 300,000 Kurds with poison gas WMD's. We do not give away illegal poison gas.
Quote:Why would we attack Iraq, if its economy and infrastructure had already been shattered by years of economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations?
Perhaps you missed the latest news. The UN was funneling money from the Oil for Food program and giving kickbacks to countries like France (now you know why they didn't support the war).
Quote:Didn't we support Iraq at one point? http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ (picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Dictator AFTER he killed those Kuwaities. Why didn't we go after him then?)
Well, I believe that Clinton was president when this picture was taken and he was too worried about interns and cigars to get involved with Saddam.
Quote:://members.cox.net/cowicide/bush/
[quote]
"As a liberal, I see danger in our current administration. The man is fearless, and consistent. However, he has not listened to his advisors."
At least we both agree that Bush has a backbone. But this is the first time I've ever head anyone accuse Bush of not listening to his advisors. Most people accuse him of the opposite--of letting Cheney and Rumsfield run the show. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Bush has surrounded himself with advisors with many differing points of view. He listens to each one, then makes a decision after carefully considering all points of view.
[quote]
"I do not believe that we should cater to others in our decision making, but by definition preemptive striking goes against our country's beliefs. We are not Big Brother, nor are we the tyrannical dictators that we are today showing the world. We are right this minute flexing our muscles in defiance."
Preemptive striking does not go against our country's beliefs. What goes against our country's beliefs is leaving ourselves vulnerable for attack by allowing terrorists to terrorize the world, including us.
[quote]
"Saddam did not attack us. Much as he has throuhout the last 30 years since we put him in power, espoused hatred and brutalized his own people, we never did anything in defense of his people because that has never been our role in the world. "
Again, please let me point out that we did not invade Iraq because we thought Saddam Hussein was involved in 911. We did it because we thought he could equip terrorists to commit another, and perhaps worse, act of terror on our soil.
[quote]
"Then came a terrible attack on our shores by a group of terrorists called Al Qaida, and Osama bin Ladin, whose family, incidentally, has close business relations with the Bush family, through a company called the Carlisle group, who, today is profitting greatly through it's military buisiness deals. On September 13, 2001 when this coutry was paralyzed with fear, our airlines losing millions of dollars hourly as they were grounded, The remainder of the Bin Ladin family, who were here in the US were safely flown to Saudi Arabia, without so much as being questioned."
First, Bin Laden's family disowned him long ago. Second, how do you know they weren't questioned? Third, it was common sense to get his family out of our country.
[quote]
"then, when we had him (Osama) cornered in Torah Borah, we turned over the reins to drug warlords who in the weeks previous, had been working with Bin Ladin."
By the way, John Kerry endorsed this plan at the time, although he has flip flopped on it since, as usual. And our troops never would have caught him there. He was at an advantage because he was used to the terrain and the weather, and our troops were not.
[quote]
"Keep in mind that in 1962 Cuba had missiles pointed at the US and we diplomatically diffused the situation."
Yeah, we threatened to nuke them if they didn't get rid of them. They cooperated and got rid of them. "Diplomacy" as you call it, was successful. Saddam Hussein was not cooperative.
[quote]
"What was the imminent threat posed by Iraq? WMD? The inspectors, even though they couldn't do their jobs properly, couldn't find the evidence."
Yes, WMD was the imminent threat. We may not have proven they were there, but we haven't proven they weren't. I believe time will show that they were. Even if they weren't, Saddam Hussein could very easily have equipped terrorists with the knowledge they needed in order to get them and deliver them here. I would think this would be obvious to anyone.
[quote]
"We talk about casualties. When you go to war there are going to be casualties, it's a given. That's why most leaders have grave difficulty committing live children to war. We have lost 1,000 + live of our own people. We, through the expenditure of billions of dollars have undoubtedly cost the lives of others here at home that that money could have helped. "
Bush did not make the decision to go to Iraq lightly. He gave Saddam Hussein a lot of time and warnings. But Bush had the difficult job of weighing the question of whether to experience casualties through war, or continued casualties here at home, which would then lead to war. He chose to avoid the continued casualties here at home by going to war before they happen rather than waiting for them to happen. Yes, lives are being lost, and that is tragic--war is tragic, but if this war is successful--and it will be if we stay the course--then more lives will be saved than are being lost.
[quote]
"Please believe me when I say I support our troops. I am thankful every day that they are there and have chosen to defend our country with their lives on the line."
I feel the same way. We do share common ground here.
[quote]
"But for the current administration I pose this question. Are we defending America? What are we doing to prevent terrorism?"
Answer: We are confronting terrorism wherever it exists. First in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. We are working diplomatically with other countries such as Iran and North Korea. We are exploring ways to increase airport security. We have increased our federal intelligence agencies' ability to communicate with one another. We are struggling to find the balance between racial profiling and identifying potential terrorists. Yes, we have fumbled at times along the way, but this war on terror is a new kind of war, and we are learning through experience.
[quote]
"As a large country with open borders, it is easy to do massive harm either undtected or with small casualties for the terrorist. In my opinion, we are creating a recruitment campaign for young terrorists."
I do have to say that the one area where I disagree vehemently with Bush (and actually, I haven't agreed with Kerry, either on this), is the whole area of immigration. I think a lot more needs to be done to protect our borders. Illegal middle-eastern immigrants are starting to come in, in increasing numbers through the Mexico border. We definitely need to secure our borders and enforce our laws against illegal aliens. Don't get me wrong. I am all for people coming to this country to seek a better future. Most of us are descendants of people who did just that. But I do not agree with rewarding illegal aliens with job cards, welfare benefits, or any other right. If they want to come here, they need to go through the legal channels or face deportation. If someone attempts to come here illegally, there should be a specified time period before they would be allowed to come back legally.
[quote]
"Remember, we are chiristian by birth and location. If you were born in China it would be very likely that you are Buddhist, India Hindu, Middle east Islamic. To all the conservatives out there (I say that to the ones who hate all liberals as heathens), do you really believe, as Charisma Magazine says, that GW is the chosen one? That God is on his and thus America's side? I implore you, When Jesus walked this earth, it was the existing clergy that he said was wrong. Jesus preached love and said that God loves all his children, even the unclean, the unsaved, etc.... I won't know this til I'm dead, but I believe, it is my faith that when we get to the hereafter, it ain't gonna be just Pat Robertson and the southern Baptists! I bet there will be Catholics, Jews, Islams, American Indians, and all those others that you on the extreme right have written off to eternal damnation. I know the bible says an eye for an eye, I know it says thou shalt not kill. I also know it says not to be the one to first cast a stone, and that it says turn the other cheek and judge not lest ye be judged."
I don't normally like to comment about Christianity and religion, so I 'm just going to say that I appreciate you sharing your point of view. I am a born again Christian, and I do not judge others, and there are many like me who don't.
[quote]
"Most Americans want nothing more than to be able to make a decent living and take care of their family. Is it easier now, than it was 4 years ago? Unemployment is up, forclosures are up, the average wage paid is down. Will I make it? Yeah, but I am a rare breed. I have seen the signs in my area and have taken steps to protect my future. A lot of Americans now have bad credit due to circumstances beyond their control (the economy for one, limited access to adequate health care for two) I now have the ability to finance their car for them. Hooray for me the capitalist pig. I have a problem with the far right conservatives. They seem to think that they are morally superior than everyone else and are against taxes. I don't like to pay taxes any more than anyone else, but I am more than willing to pay for "liberal" humanistic ideals that every child should have food clothing shelter and healthcare. I believe that we should care for the elderly, I believe we should hold the door for a lady, and that the Highway patrol should help stranded motorists. I don't need a pastor to tell me this."
Perhaps you can afford to pay higher taxes, but many of the Americans you referenced above cannot. I have the same old-fashioned ideals as you, but I think there is a right way and a wrong way to go about attaining them. I would love to see every child in America have access to healthcare coverage, but not at the price of socialist government policies that open the door for government intrusion into the personal lives of the families that use it. There are many ways to help businesses provide health benefits to their workers. Tax incentives is one of those ways, but I am convinced that there are many, many more creative ways to do this that haven't been tried, or even discussed. But if taxes are raised, small businesses will be the most hurt, and if they go out of business, more jobs are lost. The best way to help the economy is to empower small businesses.
[quote]
"You know, last night I watched part of Kerry's senate hearings when he was 27, and he didn't sound bad at all. As a matter of fact, his testimony helped get our young men home quicker. "
He accused our men of committing war crimes. He is a big part of the reason why our men were booed when they returned from Vietnam. He caused them to experience greater torture in prison. No soldier is supposed to protest against the cause of the country he is fighting for--many would consider that being a traitor, especially when you give your fellow soldiers a bad name by calling them war criminals.
"Do I believe that John Kerry will fulfill every promise he has made during the campaign? No, I would be a fool to think so, welcome to American Politics. I am just honestly scared of where George Bush and company will take us if reelected."
Funny, that's how I feel if Kerry is elected.
[quote]
"My prediction.... a very close race with Kerry winning."
I hope you're wrong.
Miraclehomes,
I appreciate what you had to say, but you may have been just a little out of line with some of it.
Quote:
On 2004-10-31 23:07, miraclehomes wrote:
"The time bomb was ticking in Iraq, and if you do not have enough common sense to realize that, you shouldn't be aloud to vote, whether you are voting for President Bush, or Senator Kerry.
You should have to have at least a 15 IQ to vote."
Remember that just because somebody doesn't see something the same way you see it, that doesn't mean they have a lower IQ. The situation in Iraq is complicated, and many of the differing viewpoints about Iraq are the results of different political ideologies, perspectives, and sources of information, not because of differing IQ's.
Everyone in this country, regardless of how they see Iraq, has a right to vote. I'm sure you didn't mean it literally, but I wanted to point it out because that comment could be potentially hurtful to someone who doesn't agree with us on Iraq.
Candace
The Seattle Times, who endorsed Bush in 2000, now endorses Kerry.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_0827b.html
The Chicago Sun Times, which endorsed Bush in 2000, now endorses Kerry:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1024c.html
The Orlando Sentinel, which endorsed Bush in 2000, now endorses Kerry:
"Our position: The Bush presidency has disappointed us on almost all counts"
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1024a.html
I just got back from a Bush rally here in Des Moines, Iowa...he was very confident he would carry Iowa, his daughters, sister, sister-in-law were there and spoke also. laura showed up when he finished...
He had some good points and sounded very good. I was impressed with his speaking. He exceeded my expectations, although they were pretty low.
I predict...Bush wins outright...and he will carry Iowa.
"He exceeded my expectations, although they were pretty low."
isn't that sad that your expectations for the most powerful officeholder in the world were "pretty low?"
shouldn't we have HIGH expectations for the president?
This clown has gotten a 'pass' his whole friggin' life. Let's hold him to some lofty standards for once in his life, shall we?
Jesus
Wow...3 liberal Democrat newspapers endorse Kerry ...what a news flash...CWal
Wow...3 liberal Democrat newspapers endorse Kerry ...what a news flash...
if they were liberal democratic newspapers, then why did they originally endorse Bush?
And if you bothered to read them, the Orlando Sentinel hasn't endorsed a democrat in 40 years.
let's get a little more information in our heads, ok?
Wow again....you all sure held President Clinton to high standards didn't you??? CWal
the worst thing Clinton did in office was have an affair with an adult, and the republicans almost impeached him for that.
Bush is sending people to their deaths in the most callous rush to war in the history of this country.
which is worse?
Wow again ..that means you were only 66.66% wrong...great average...CWal
you rednecks need to get over the fact that you lost the Civil War.
It's ok to vote for a Yankee.
now go polish your rifle and brush your tooth before bedtime.
Democrat talking points...this bunch couldn't run a shoestore. The answer to all everything is to raise taxes & kill economies...they are incompetent...CWal
Well, as usual...your 100% wrong now...I lived in Orange County for 25 yrs...Democrat typecasting...can you do anything right??? CWal
how about taking 3 minutes and reading the critique by the Orlando Sentinel, instead of me, or anyone else?
THEY HAVEN'T ENDORSED A DEMOCRAT IN 40 FRIGGIN' YEARS--
is that unbiased enough for you?
Quote:
On 2004-11-01 19:45, aquazomb wrote:
how about taking 3 minutes and reading the critique by the Orlando Sentinel, instead of me, or anyone else?
THEY HAVEN'T ENDORSED A DEMOCRAT IN 40 FRIGGIN' YEARS--
is that unbiased enough for you?
Okay, so I am supposed to poll newspaper editors so I can make up my mind? No, I don't think so. They can choose who they want. I prefer to make my own choices. If I wanted to be a lemming, I would have registered Democrat.
what a joke.
I can't have a discussion with people who don't even entertain alternative ideas.
unbelievable that I live in the same country as you.
isn't that funny...I was thinking the same thing...CWal
Jesus...ok now...on a serious note...what is your main reason to vote Democrat & i'll tell you why i could never vote for them...CWal
CLINTON DID NOTHING AFTER 3 ATTACKS AND WE ARE PAYING FOR IT NOW. JOHN KERRY IS ANOTHER
CLINTON!!!
DOES ANYONE AGREE WITH CLINTON DOING NOTHING?
NOT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND THESE BIAS GUYS WILL REMOVE MY AD AS ALWAYS. READ HERE AND CHECK FOR YOUR SELF.
1993 trade center attacked(clinton did nothing)
1996 2 us embassy attacked.(clinton did nothing)
1998 war ship cole was attacked.(clinton did nothing)
and you say go clinton. Ol my god you have to be a retard or agree with the terriost and doing NOTHING ABOUT IT.
Clinton chased ass not terriost!!!!!!!
Kerry is another clinton.
If you liked Clinton you love saddam to i guess.
Maybe if your family members were killed under clinton watch you would use your head for more than HAT RACK...
CLINTON CAUSED 9/11 If he had chase anyone other than his ho's maybe the terriost wouldn't have killed over 5,000 people HERE.
And we are in afganistan now and iraq. SAME TIME. ol i know bush should have acted like clinton letting saddam just do what ever. and nothing.
AFTER HE HAD HIS PEOPLE RAPED,MURDERED,TORTURED,
GASED, STARVED. AND ZAQAKWE IS CONNECTED TO BINLADIN AND SADDAM.
after our people(5,000) were murdered.. The first night of 1991 gulf war a f18 pilot was shot down scott spigler and his family has been on tv now with proof he was held by saddam till now.
YOU TELL HIS FAMILY WHY FOR 8 YEARS CLINTON WAS A COWARD AND NEVER WENT TO GET OUR GUY.
I KNOW SCREW ALL THE DEMOCROOKS (COWARDS)
Missing '91 Pilot's Initials Found in Baghdad Prison
Thursday, April 24, 2003
STORIES BACKGROUND
WASHINGTON — American investigators may be one step closer to determining the fate of Navy pilot Scott Speicher (more news | Web), who has been missing in Iraq since the first Gulf War.
Investigators have found the initials of Michael Scott Speicher -- "MSS" -- etched into a prison wall in downtown Baghdad. This new information is giving the Speicher family hope of finding their loved one alive after more than 10 years of emotional turmoil.
"They are a strong family with one mission, which is to bring him home -- and they stay entirely focused on that," Speicher family attorney Cindy Laquidara told News Thursday.
The initials were scrawled into a cell wall in the Hakmiyah prison, although it's not known who wrote them, or whether they had anything to do with the missing pilot, U.S. officials cautioned.
But an informant said an American pilot was held at that prison in the mid-1990s, the officials said.
A joint team of operatives from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency is in Iraq searching for clues to Speicher's fate.
Lt. Cmdr. Speicher, an F/A-18 Hornet pilot from Jacksonville, Fla., and three other pilots flew off the USS Saratoga for a bombing run over Iraq on Jan. 17, 1991, the first night of the Gulf War. During the mission, another Hornet pilot saw a flash and lost sight of Speicher.
were are you clinton??????
Careful now Charlotte...they only want high standards on the Rebublican side ...their rules are different...CWal
charlottehomebuyers,
I agree with you about Clinton doing nothing, and I've been saying that all along. Not only did he do nothing about the terrorist attacks you mentioned, but he covered up the fact that TWA Flight 800 was shot down by terrorists because it was an election year. The Olympics bombing also may have been terrorists. He has had more than one opportunity to detain Bin Laden, and he refused. And you're right: Kerry is no different. The man had to take a poll just to decide what his reaction to the latest Bin Ladin video is.
I sure am scared of what will happen if Kerry is elected now. Bin Ladin is watching the electoral college, and if spineless John Kerry is elected, Bin Ladin could begin planning attacks against Bush states and attack us, and Kerry would be too busy taking polls to do anything to stop him.
Aquazomb,
I don't know what your point is in telling us which papers are endorsing Bush. In the end, the only thing that matters is how the people actually vote. I, for one, will be glad when this election is over. I can't stand the suspense!
Candace
Quote:
On 2004-11-01 19:52, aquazomb wrote:
what a joke.
I can't have a discussion with people who don't even entertain alternative ideas.
unbelievable that I live in the same country as you.
I apologize if you thought I was being testy, I was testy. I am that way right now because you and others are telling me that you can only tell me why I should vote against Bush - you cannot tell me why I should vote for Kerry. And when that doesn't work, you tell me I should let someone else make up my mind for me. I have no problem listening to other points of view. I disagree with Bush on many things like stem cell research, fiscal conservativism, death penalty, and others. But I agree with him on other points such as having a strong America -- strong in defense, strong economy, strong moral fiber. Those are things that Kerry cannot or will not provide.
Quote:
On 2004-11-01 20:10, newcreation wrote:
charlottehomebuyers,
Not only did he do nothing about the terrorist attacks you mentioned, but he covered up the fact that TWA Flight 800 was shot down by terrorists because it was an election year.
Candace,
I know you feel strongly, and I share your sentiments, but the official cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 does not include a shoulder fired missle. While I agree that there is significant evidence to that effect, we should not accuse the libs of doing things or of conspiracies we can't prove.
Well Newcretaion -
did u watch it?
bnorton,
Check out this link
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41168
and this link
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40990
I'm not making it up.
Candace
bnorton...I agree...that would be invading their terratory...proof, they don't need no stinkin proof...we hold ourselves to higher standards...CWal
Regal,
. I'm sure I'll disagree with most of it, but it's bound to be entertaining, assuming it doesn't make me mad! lol
Not yet, but I will--probably after the election. I get my DVD's through blockbuster's flat-rate online rentals because I live way out in the country. I haven't been able to get it yet, but I said I will, and I truly will. I'll let you know when I have. I'm actually anxious to see it. I've heard a lot about it (for those of you who don't know what we are talking about, it's "Fahrenheit 911"
When I have watched it, I will start a new thread about it.
Candace
One more link about the TWA crash being a covered-up terrorist attack:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40798
This one is a must-read.
Candace
Actually, Candace, I saw some other links that were really compelling as well. But until it is the official finding, I say we leave the conspiracy accusations to the libs. I know it is a double standard, but I don't want to get drawn into their sandbox playing by their rules.
bnorton,
I see what you are saying. We don't want to reduce ourselves to their level. We want to show that we have class. I stand corrected.
I have to admit, I am getting short on patience. While it is not ruling my life, I can't wait for Wednesday morning to hit. I just hope the lemmings don't win.
I'm with you there, believe me.
One more thing I hope for...that we actually know who won on Wednesday morning.
You got that right, but don't hold your breath. The libs have attorneys at the polling places. They may try to fix the election like they tried to in FL 2000.
sometimes i feel this "higher standard" thing is a Republican weakness that Democrats use to their own advantage...case in point ...Florida 2000...an obvious attempt by Gore & the Democrats to steal the election...and the "higher standard" Republicans not blatantly accusing them of it...so, being the propaganda experts they are - the Democrats accused the Republicans of what they were guilty of...and of course , their mindless minions accepted that as gospel - Democrat style politics...I simply don't understand why anyone with 1/2 a brain would ever put any kind of faith in this bunch...All it takes is a little investigation to get the truth...CWal
Conspiracy theories, eh?
There is so much going on right in front of us it would probably make all our heads explode if we knew all about it.
I'll throw this out here just for fun...
There was never an airplane found that hit the only area of the pentagon where noone was working the morning of 911.
Also, no cameras that cover every square inch of the pentagon property caught a glimpse of it. Weird. It was also weird to see the footage of the hole at the pentagon before the roof collapsed. It was about 1/2 the size of a jetliners. A perfect circle with no aircraft debris at the site. And of course the obvious fact that a airliner could go untouched into the pentagon airspace while we were under attack without being intercepted. Later on, pictures appeared with small hand- carried parts thrown here and there.
I guess I'll toss out this interesting fact too...
The 3rd world trade center that was not hit, but fell mysteriously (remember 3 towers falling?) was only the 3rd concrete and steel blg to ever fall from fire. The first 2 were the other towers.
Clean up was performed by the biggest skyscraper demolition company in the country that normally demos the large blgs like casinos etc. and the scraps were sent directly overseas under fbi guard.
Bush then didn't want ANY investigation if you recall. When the 911 report finally came out, dozens of pages were excluded. No independant investigations are being allowed.
Now there's a consipracy theory.
Sorry Regal. I hate to rain on your parade. I was sitting on the Memorial Bridge on my way to VA when the plane hit the pentagon. I cannot personally attest to the stuff in NY, but I can tell you that your conspiracy theorists are wrong about the pentagon.
You saw the plane?
I really didn't think much of it until I saw the fireball. I was actually concentrating on the story coming out of NY. I wasn't paying much attention to anything else. It never dawned on me that the pentagon would be hit.
Regal,
The Internet is great for the dissemination of information. The problem is that it cannot always be validated. We can do incredible things to make things look real. I can take the head of your grandmother, and put it on the body of an 18 year old girl, and make it look real. You have to take this stuff with a grain of salt. Everyone who voted for Kerry or Bush based on the junk they found on the Internet has more often than not based their decision on false information. It is truly sad.
Actually I saw the live footage on a dvd that's going around. It shows the firefighters trying to put out the fire before the roof collapsed. No sign of a plane and then it showed the inner rings where there was a perfect little circle, again with no plane in site. Actually, the dvd is called 'In Plane Site", lol.
I dunno, I'm actually trying to forget I ever saw anything. Could be a hoax. What picqued my attention to begin with was watching the 3 towers fall straight down. Looked like a demo I saw on the discovery channel about demo-ing a casino.
i had a friend in the pen. parking lot and saw the plane hit.........god be with the ones that persihed on that day........i love this country and all the 'AMERICANS' in this country. we decide the future of the rest of the world. i was born a american and am thankful for it. 99% of the rest of the world would trade places with you now to be here........km
GO BUSH!!!!! :-D
Quote:
On 2004-10-28 14:35, jeff12002 wrote:
NYRE,
If he lied, then he knew then what we know now. He had the same intelligence that everyone else had. It was bad Intelligence. Not Lies. We are continuing to look For BinLaden. He might just be buried under some rubble in a cave somewhere though. I mean, No one has heard from him in a while have they?
You've got that right. He absolutely knew then what we know now. If he truely thought there were WMDs, why would we have moved our troops so quickly into Baghdad, knowing they would be wiped out? The answer is clear, because it was already known that there were no WMDs.
OTOH, if we honestly thought there were WMDs, someone's head should roll for stretching our supply lines and exposing our troops to such weapons.
The sad thing is that we are fighting an enemy that we refuse to try to understand. As long as we refuse to recognize the mindset of these people, we are destined to lose this battle no matter how many we kill.
Quote:
The sad thing is that we are fighting an enemy that we refuse to try to understand. As long as we refuse to recognize the mindset of these people, we are destined to lose this battle no matter how many we kill.
I do not nor should I care about understanding my enemy or his mindset. My goal is to impress my will upon him.......or just kill him (which I prefer).....for that all I need to know his tactics, his weaknesses and his location.
I would rather be feared then loved.
NC_Yank